Cost-effectiveness of dexamphetamine and methylphenidate for the treatment of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Objective: To analyze from a health sector perspective the cost-effectiveness of dexamphetamine (DEX) and methylphenidate (MPH) interventions to treat childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), compared to current practice. Method: Children eligible for the interventions are those aged between 4 and 17 years in 2000, who had ADHD and were seeking care for emotional or behavioural problems, but were not receiving stimulant medication. To determine health benefit, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed for DEX and MPH, and the effect sizes were translated into utility values. An assessment on second stage filter criteria ('equity', 'strength of evidence', 'feasibility' and 'acceptability to stakeholders') is also undertaken to incorporate additional factors that impact on resource allocation decisions. Simulation modelling techniques are used to present a 95% uncertainty interval (UI) around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is calculated in cost (in A$) per DALY averted. Results: The ICER for DEX is A$4100/DALY saved (95% UI: negative to A$14 000) and for MPH is A$15 000/DALY saved (95% UI: A$9100-22 000). DEX is more costly than MPH for the government, but much less costly for the patient. Conclusions: MPH and DEX are cost-effective interventions for childhood ADHD. DEX is more cost-effective than MPH, although if MPH were listed at a lower price on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme it would become more cost-effective. Increased uptake of stimulants for ADHD would require policy change. However, the medication of children and wider availability of stimulants may concern parents and the community.

Cost-effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological interventions for generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder

Objective: To assess from a health sector perspective the incremental cost-effectiveness of interventions for generalized anxiety disorder (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs]) and panic disorder (CBT, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] and tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]). Method: The health benefit is measured as a reduction in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), based on effect size calculations from meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. An assessment on second stage filters ('equity', 'strength of evidence', 'feasibility' and 'acceptability to stakeholders') is also undertaken to incorporate additional factors that impact on resource allocation decisions. Costs and benefits are calculated for a period of one year for the eligible population (prevalent cases of generalized anxiety disorder/panic disorder identified in the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, extrapolated to the Australian population in the year 2000 for those aged 18 years and older). Simulation modelling techniques are used to present 95% uncertainty intervals (UI) around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: Compared to current practice, CBT by a psychologist on a public salary is the most cost-effective intervention for both generalized anxiety disorder (A$6900/DALY saved; 95% UI A$4000 to A$12 000) and panic disorder (A$6800/DALY saved; 95% UI A$2900 to A$15 000). Cognitive behavioural therapy results in a greater total health benefit than the drug interventions for both anxiety disorders, although equity and feasibility concerns for CBT interventions are also greater. Conclusions: Cognitive behavioural therapy is the most effective and cost-effective intervention for generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder. However, its implementation would require policy change to enable more widespread access to a sufficient number of trained therapists for the treatment of anxiety disorders.

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders

Background: The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists is co-ordinating the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in psychiatry, funded under the National Mental Health Strategy (Australia) and the New Zealand Health Funding Authority. This paper presents CPGs for schizophrenia and related disorders. Over the past decade schizophrenia has become more treatable than ever before. A new generation of drug therapies, a renaissance of psychological and psychosocial interventions and a first generation of reform within the specialist mental health system have combined to create an evidence-based climate of realistic optimism. Progressive neuroscientific advances hold out the strong possibility of more definitive biological treatments in the near future. However, this improved potential for better outcomes and quality of life for people with schizophrenia has not been translated into reality in Australia. The efficacy-effectiveness gap is wider for schizophrenia than any other serious medical disorder. Therapeutic nihilism, under-resourcing of services and a stalling of the service reform process, poor morale within specialist mental health services, a lack of broad-based recovery and life support programs, and a climate of tenacious stigma and consequent lack of concern for people with schizophrenia are the contributory causes for this failure to effectively treat. These guidelines therefore tackle only one element in the endeavour to reduce the impact of schizophrenia. They distil the current evidence-base and make recommendations based on the best available knowledge. Method: A comprehensive literature review (1990-2003) was conducted, including all Cochrane schizophrenia reviews and all relevant meta-analyses, and a number of recent international clinical practice guidelines were consulted. A series of drafts were refined by the expert committee and enhanced through a bi-national consultation process. Treatment recommendations: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of schizophrenia by treatment type and by phase of illness. The essential features of the guidelines are: (i) Early detection and comprehensive treatment of first episode cases is a priority since the psychosocial and possibly the biological impact of illness can be minimized and outcome improved. An optimistic attitude on the part of health professionals is an essential ingredient from the outset and across all phases of illness. (ii) Comprehensive and sustained intervention should be assured during the initial 3-5 years following diagnosis since course of illness is strongly influenced by what occurs in this 'critical period'. Patients should not have to 'prove chronicity' before they gain consistent access and tenure to specialist mental health services. (iii) Antipsychotic medication is the cornerstone of treatment. These medicines have improved in quality and tolerability, yet should be used cautiously and in a more targeted manner than in the past. The treatment of choice for most patients is now the novel antipsychotic medications because of their superior tolerability and, in particular, the reduced risk of tardive dyskinesia. This is particularly so for the first episode patient where, due to superior tolerability, novel agents are the first, second and third line choice. These novel agents are nevertheless associated with potentially serious medium to long-term side-effects of their own for which patients must be carefully monitored. Conventional antipsychotic medications in low dosage may still have a role in a small proportion of patients, where there has been full remission and good tolerability; however, the indications are shrinking progressively. These principles are now accepted in most developed countries. (vi) Clozapine should be used early in the course, as soon as treatment resistance to at least two antipsychotics has been demonstrated. This usually means incomplete remission of positive symptomatology, but clozapine may also be considered where there are pervasive negative symptoms or significant or persistent suicidal risk is present. (v) Comprehensive psychosocial interventions should be routinely available to all patients and their families, and provided by appropriately trained mental health professionals with time to devote to the task. This includes family interventions, cognitive-behaviour therapy, vocational rehabilitation and other forms of therapy, especially for comorbid conditions, such as substance abuse, depression and anxiety. (vi) The social and cultural environment of people with schizophrenia is an essential arena for intervention. Adequate shelter, financial security, access to meaningful social roles and availability of social support are essential components of recovery and quality of life. (vii) Interventions should be carefully tailored to phase and stage of illness, and to gender and cultural background. (viii) Genuine involvement of consumers and relatives in service development and provision should be standard. (ix) Maintenance of good physical health and prevention and early treatment of serious medical illness has been seriously neglected in the management of schizophrenia, and results in premature death and widespread morbidity. Quality of medical care for people with schizophrenia should be equivalent to the general community standard. (x) General practitioners (GPs)s should always be closely involved in the care of people with schizophrenia. However, this should be truly shared care, and sole care by a GP with minimal or no special Optimal treatment of schizophrenia requires a multidisciplinary team approach with a consultant psychiatrist centrally involved.

Cost effectiveness of adding magnetic resonance imaging to the usual management of suspected scaphoid fractures

Objective: To determine the cost effectiveness of a magnetic resonance imaging scan (MRI) within 5 days of injury compared with the usual management of occult scaphoid fracture. Methods: All patients with suspected scaphoid fractures in five hospitals were invited to participate in a randomised controlled trial of usual treatment with or without an MRI scan. Healthcare costs were compared, and a cost effectiveness analysis of the use of MRI in this scenario was performed. Results: Twenty eight of the 37 patients identified were randomised: 17 in the control group, 11 in the MRI group. The groups were similar at baseline and follow up in terms of number of scaphoid fractures, other injuries, pain, and function. Of the patients without fracture, the MRI group had significantly fewer days immobilised: a median of 3.0 (interquartile range 3.0-3.0) v 10.0 (7-12) in the control group (p = 0.006). The MRI group used fewer healthcare units (median 3.0, interquartile range 2.0-4.25) than the control group (5.0, 3.0-6.5) (p = 0.03 for the difference). However, the median cost of health care in the MRI group ($594.35 AUD, $551.35-667.23) was slightly higher than in the control group ($428.15, $124.40-702.65) (p = 0.19 for the difference). The mean incremental cost effectiveness ratio derived from this simulation was that MRI costs $44.37 per day saved from unnecessary immobilisation (95% confidence interval $4.29 to $101.02). An illustrative willingness to pay was calculated using a combination of the trials measure of the subjects' individual productivity losses and the average daily earnings. Conclusions: Use of MRI in the management of occult scaphoid fracture reduces the number of days of unnecessary immobilisation and use of healthcare units. Healthcare costs increased non-significantly in relation to the use of MRI in this setting. However, when productivity losses are considered, MRI may be considered cost effective, depending on the individual case.

The Australian Universities Teaching Committee project in 'Learning Outcomes and Curriculum Development in Psychology'

The Australian Universities Teaching Committee (AUTC) funds projects intended to improve the quality of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas. The project brief for 'Learning Outcomes and Curriculum Development in Psychology' for 2004/2005 was to 'produce an evaluative overview of courses ... with a focus on the specification and assessment of learning outcomes and ... identify strategic directions for universities to enhance teaching and learning'. This project was awarded to a consortium from The University of Queensland, University of Tasmania, and Southern Cross University. The starting point for this project is an analysis of the scientist-practitioner model and its role in curriculum design, a review of current challenges at a conceptual level, and consideration of the implications of recent changes to universities relating to such things as intemationalisation of programs and technological advances. The project will seek to bring together stakeholders from around the country in order to survey the widest possible range of perspectives on the project brief requirements. It is hoped also to establish mechanisms for fiiture scholarly discussion of these issues, including the establishment of an Australian Society for the Teaching of Psychology and an annual conference.

Achieving the millennium development goals for health - Cost effectiveness analysis of strategies for. maternal and neonatal health in developing countries

Objective To determine the costs and benefits of interventions for maternal and newborn health to assess the appropriateness of current strategies and guide future plans to attain the millennium development goals. Design Cost effectiveness analysis. Setting Two regions classified by the World Health Organization according to their epidemiological grouping: Afr-E, those countries in sub-Saharan Africa with very high adult and high child mortality, and Sear-D, comprising countries in South East Asia with high adult and high child mortality. Data sources Effectiveness data from several sources, including trials, observational studies, and expert opinion. For resource inputs, quantifies came from WHO guidelines, literature, and expert opinion, and prices from the WHO choosing interventions that are cost effective database. Main outcome measures Cost per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted in year 2000 international dollars. Results The most cost effective mix of interventions was similar in Afr-E and Sear-D. These were the community based newborn care package, followed by antenatal care (tetanus toxoid, screening for pre-eclampsia, screening and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria and syphilis); skilled attendance at birth, offering first level maternal and neonatal care around childbirth; and emergency obstetric and neonatal care around and after birth. Screening and treatment of maternal syphilis, community based management of neonatal pneumonia, and steroids given during the antenatal period were relatively less cost effective in Sear-D. Scaling up all of the included interventions to 95% coverage would halve neonatal and maternal deaths. Conclusion Preventive interventions at the community level for newborn babies and at the primary care level for mothers and newborn babies are extremely cost effective, but the millennium development goals for maternal and child health will not be achieved without universal access to clinical services as well.

National audit of anaesthesia for major abdominal surgery

A postal survey was conducted of all hospitals in Australia known to have a department of anaesthesia and an intensive care or high dependency unit. Each hospital was asked to report the anaesthetic and postoperative analgesic techniques used for the last ten cases of four common major surgical procedures-aorto-femoral bypass, repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, hemicolectomy and anterior resection of the rectum. Half of 76 hospitals sent a survey form completed and returned it. Responding hospitals were larger on average, than non-responding ones, but otherwise typical of them in terms of university affiliation and metropolitan versus rural location. For each of the procedures studied the proportion of cases in which epidural block was used intra- or postoperatively varied from 0% to 100%. Depending on the procedure, between 65% and 85% of hospitals used epidural block sometimes, with between 10% and 90% of patients in these hospitals being managed with this technique. There is wide variation in the use of epidural block, intra- and postoperatively, in Australia, variation that is unlikely to be explained by systematic differences between institutions in the patients seen or their suitability for one or other technique. This pattern of practice mirrors the lack of agreement about the proper place for epidural techniques evident in the recent literature. There is a widespread belief among clinicians that this is a question of great importance. Accordingly, we believe that anaesthetists and surgeons share an ethical responsibility to enter suitable patients in an appropriately designed randomized controlled trial in order to resolve this question.